Wednesday, August 29, 2012

The Mars Curiosity Rover Fraud: What Color Should The Martian Sky Be?

I put up my weekly rant on Sunday, with a revelation about NASA's Curiosity Rover that I felt had to be told.   I received many emails and comments afterwards asking me to further elaborate on my thoughts and findings that showed that we are being suckered again by NASA by this fraudulent Curiosity Rover on Mars...

First, I must state it clearly for everyone to know... I firmly believe that this Curiosity mission to Mars is a massive fraud.   I have already said in previous articles how the way that NASA claims they "landed" this rover on Mars did not make sense.  First, the aerobraking that they claim was performed to decelerate the craft from some 13200mph to around 900mph to deploy the "supersonic parachute" did not make sense.  So many variables were not taken into account including the fact that Mars' atmosphere is ultra thin, and varies from season to season.  For Example...Much of the atmosphere in the Mars northern hemisphere actually freezes out in the Martian winter into its frozen ice cap at its pole.  That means that the atmosphere of Mars is theoretically thinner in the Martian winter!  NASA did its calculations of the atmospheric density for its aerobraking maneuver calculations without taking into account such variables...That and, I was never sold on their "supersonic parachute" which I firmly believe was not able to deploy in the ultra thin atmosphere, as well as their "skycrane" that we find was never first tested here on Earth!  How in the heck would NASA send such a contraption 150 million miles away to an alien world, without testing it many times over here on Earth?   So many questions.. So few answers....

Now comes the other factor that I do believe should blow the entire Curiosity fraud wide open... The true color of the Martian sky....

First, lets face the facts.. We live on Earth, and are very much "Earth-centric" in our thinking of our world and what standing on an alien world would be like.  We have grown up with a blue sky that is caused by sunlight hitting Nitrogen molecules in our THICK atmosphere.  Nitrogen's color spectrum is blue, and the effect of sunlight hitting these molecules scatters the blue light of that Nitrogen spectrum making our sky blue. 

But an amazing thing happens when you rise to above 100,000 ft above the Earth surface.  The air pressure dramatically falls, and there are less Nitrogen molecules at that elevation, and therefore the ability of Nitrogen molecules to scatter that light to create a blue sky diminishes.  What we find in fact, is a black sky.   That has been proven again and again by high flying planes, high altitude balloons, and even seen from low Earth orbit. This is logical.

Now comes Mars, with its surface air pressure of CO2 gas at about 0.5 % of Earth's surface pressure.  That air pressure is almost exactly what we would experience at above 100,000 ft above the Earth's surface.  OK.. Now the tricky part... How then can the Martian sky be any other color than black?   We already see that equivalent sky on Earth at that air pressure ,at 100,000ft altitude above the Earth is black, due to lack of Nitrogen molecules, so why is that not also true for Mars' low atmospheric pressure surface sky, which lacks enough air molecules?  Why is the Martian sky not black as well???

I came across an amazing video from a fellow researcher out of Australia, named Jarrah White, entitled: "The Martian Sky" that I want to share with everyone right here.  Jarrah also asks the hard questions in this video about how the Martian sky can be anything else than black!  Here is that video, and I have some more comments and thoughts to follow:




NTS Notes:  So we are left with a serious quandry.... How can there even be a pink Martian sky on its surface, when there are not enough air molecules to scatter the incoming sunlight to make it pink?

I do recall when the original Viking missions of 1976 landed on "Mars", the original photos that were released to the public showed a BLUE sky.... But shortly afterwards, NASA claimed that they had the wrong "filter" on the camera lens, and voila, shortly afterwards they sold us the idea that Mars has a "pink" sky!   It must also be noted that all subsequent missions to Mars also have this improbable "pink" sky as well.... Does anyone else smell a fraud?

I will state it right here... We are being sold a complete lie again by NASA about their Mars missions, just like they sold their fraudulent Moon missions.   They faked the first Viking missions with the fake pink sky, and had to continue the same lie with each subsequent fraud mission.   Now we have this Curiosity rover on "Mars" with the same pink sky, and I say the con is continuing...

What I see is the fact that NASA was in danger of having much of its funding cut by the US Government, and they got desperate for something to sell to the American public so that the funding continues.  Lo and behold, here comes Curiosity, and its "amazing pictures" of Mars..... I noticed that last week, NASA said that they got their funding for their next mission to Mars as well!  Will wonders never cease?

Bottom line... This Curiosity rover on Mars is a fraud.  We are being played as suckers again by NASA just like they suckered the American public with their fake Apollo missions.   They have always hoped that the public would never take a closer look at their so called "science" and accept their claims at face value.   Sorry, but I for one can see the fraud, and by simply applying real practical science, I am not fooled!

More to come

NTS




22 comments:

Noor al Haqiqa said...

Why do they even do this when it is a farce? What purpose does it serve? All that wasted money.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you NTS.

Why do we have M.Rivero (who admittedly worked on special effects cinematography for NASA) shilling for another space fakery?

Why doesn't he stop lying? It makes all his professed investigative rapporting at WRH suspect. When you know someone is lying, how can you trust anything else they say?

Why is the truth so bloody hard for anyone in media (corporate or alternative) to stick too.

Lying is destructive to everything and everyone.

Frank Fredenburg said...

I agree Anonymous. I've been wondering about Mr. Rivero for awhile now. One thing I have noticed is he continually attacks Christianity, and the Bible but I don't ever recall him saying anything about the Talmud. If he's an atheist that is okay. That is his right, but be as critical about the teachings of other religions. Especially the hateful teachings of the Talmud. Maybe he has mentioned it at times, but I don't ever recall it.

Odin's Raven said...

Where's the money gone? Do the top management have 'dual loyalties'?

Northerntruthseeker said...

I have said for years the Michael Rivero is a gatekeeper. He will never say the truth about NASA for starters, because he was employed by them for a long time, and is still in the hope of getting a job with them again if and when they come calling..

We also see his WRH site full of constant "Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler" crap that most times is just too much... He knows that truth about our history and knows that period of history has been absolutely distorted by the criminal Jews for their evil benefits...

Rivero also knows that the Moon missions were a fraud, and that the Mars missions were also a fraud as well. But again, he knows who butters his bread...

Ragnarok said...

Noor asks what the purpose of all this wastage of resources is about? The question contains within it the answer. Expenditure of vast economic and intellectual resources that, in a more sane world, could be used to do so much good.The militarisation of space under the cover of science and exploration. The report from Iron Mountain, putting aside the question of it's authenticity, advocates out just such huge economic white elephants as a means of maintaining the socio-economic status quo.

The possible long term psychological goals seem to me to be the most interesting. Just what purpose does belief in this imminent human arrival on the interstellar stage serve? I mean, they can't keep it up indefinitely can they? Presumably, the Van Allen belts will keep us in near earth orbit for some time yet, barring the development of some manner of radiation shielding that doesn't require stupid amounts of lead. What happens then?

Or will they manage to stage an entirely imaginary series of launches, probes, explorations, landings, manned missions etc until the cows come home.A very depressing yes would have to be my answer, judging by the last 50 years of the longest running Sci-fi series.

Northerntruthseeker said...

Yes, we should be asking where all these BILLIONS of dollars given to the criminal enterprise called NASA has disappeared to over the years...

35-40 billion dollars in 1960's dollars for the fraud of Apollo it seems was not enough... Now they are going to get even more money for more fraudulent missions to Mars....

Dual loyalties? It does make you wonder... The money had to go somewhere...

Anonymous said...

What if NASA is just a money-funnel to a real, but secret space program? Makes sense, but I don't have evidence...just another baseless theory on the internet. :-)

Of course, there is Dolan's work, but it's hard to trust most of the "insider / whistleblowers" on the net.

Anyhow, I really enjoyed your mars landscape video. Photoshop is a wonderful thing.

ACG said...

Regardless of Nasa, space, or Mars, for anyone to ask such a naive question as "why would they...", you seriously need to wake up.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

why doesn't anybody consider the obvious? MARS ATMOSPHERE IS A LOT THICKER THAN NASA ADMITS.

Just look at the photos of clouds Mariner 9 and Viking Orbiter sent back, NASA says they are water clouds, but oops, they are the kind of cloud shapes that do not form at such allegedly low pressures.

The fraud is not the trips, the fraud is the publically released information. Probably only a few know the truth and just recalibrate for the error they snuck into the instruments before sending them to Mars.

Northerntruthseeker said...

Christine:

I had considered that option,and it is still on the table..

However, knowing what we know that NASA faked the entire Apollo on the moon missions by having them take place on Earth, and considering the cost of actually going to Mars... It is more logical that they faked it right here on Earth...

Yes, the possibility that they are indeed lying about Mars is very true. NASA lies its ass off about everything else, so why not???

At least you too can see the fraud that NASA truly is.. I applaud you for that and for critically thinking!

NTS

We-seek-the-truth said...

"That and, I was never sold on their "supersonic parachute" which I firmly believe was not able to deploy in the ultra thin atmosphere"

Fully agree with you there, absolute nonsense that needs the full glare of public exposure. In fact, I've made a search and found that this "parachute" was "manufactured" by Pioneer Aerospace (www.pioneeraero.com). I can only guess that this company either is in the pay of the NASA or they have some hold over them. It must involve dozens of their employees. How many there are involved in this cover-up I can only speculate.

As I researched I discovered many dozens of other companies world-wide in the parachute manufacturing business who must themselves employ many dozens (if not hundreds) of so-called scientists involved in the design, testing, etc of parachutes. They themselves must be fully aware of the far-fetched nature of this "mission". Yet NOT ONE of them have come forward to rubbish the outlandish claims of NASA and this "supersonic parachute" drivel as you have so proficiently done. Experts indeed! You would have thought that at least a few of them would have openly questioned the blatant holes in this fabrication.

I would suggest they have all either been threatened by the dark forces who run NASA or paid off to keep their silence. This conspiracy grows by the minute.

More power to your elbow, sir! This fraud on the people needs the shining light of logic to destroy it, as it surely will!

UR_Sheep said...

It should be mentioned that some of the very figures being used (e.g atmosphere composition of planet or moon, pressure readings, even planet structure) need also to be studied.

It doesn't end with NASA, from microbiology and macroevolution to cosmic distances and celestial mechanics, the age of things even, are measured by both physical tools and theoretical "facts" seriously inadequate for the tasks for which they mean to account. In short, any age given you for something over 12,000 years is based on theoretical speculation, like any "estimate" about the composition of Alpha Centauri.

On the NASA deal in particular, I agree with a poster on another thread who said we could well use a summary of the "Case Against NASA" and I am beginning to work on one. I came upon the threads here researching the subject online.

As of today I am unconvinced either way, and that is because, for example, too many silly and really nitpicky problems with photos and so on really degrade the value of the available good existing evidence against the possibility of deep space travel. People who say "hoax" point to too many silly things, like 4 views of a "changing" tool bag that really is just caught in glare. But I do also think the believers need to really see some things, I mean really, for example, are THOSE the lunar modules? Two genius astronauts (i.e. good at parroting and following orders) in love with and gone to space can't remember if there were stars in the sky? Why is the sky colored, did NASA admit to making everything in red tones so they're "easier for the public to eat"?

Anyway, keep up the good work, and stay objective, don't let the sounds of your own wheels make you crazy!

-UR

sam kelley said...

I enjoyed the video and laugh at their parachute story. It is so amazing how the sheep will believe anything they are told. The few times the subject comes up about the moon landings or the Mars Rover I tell them it's all BS and you should see the look on their faces. It is hilarious and sad at the same time.

jason bladzinski said...

OK, when talking about the color of the sky being a fraud by NASA on Mars it is quite a different thing to compare the color of the sky at 100000 feet on Earth for a few reasons. First thing we should realize that the quality of light that occurs on our planet and Mars is different. Anyone who knows a thing or two about light and the effects of scattering and color shift will be aware of this. It is difficult to know and understand that the mechanisms of such effects make it difficult to accurately represent the colors that the human eye would actually percieve when standing on the surface of any object in space other than our home. A good example would be the photos taken of the surface of the moon Titan, where it was described as being like trying to take photos in a black asphault parking lot at twilight. I would think it would be obvious, but it seems that no one has a problem with your claim here, but it doesn't make much sense to compare what the Martian sky at ground level would look like when compared to 100000 feet above the Earth's surface. Would it be correct to assume that the gravity on the surface of Mars is the same as the gravity of the Earth at 100000 feet above the surface? No, that would be totally wrong! Although Earth has stronger gravity than Mars, the gravity level found at the surface is stronger than what you would find at 100000 feet into the Earth's sky. The dust particles that give Mars it's tawny surface and sky color make complete sense when you think about it in this way. We can even prove it with a phenomenon that we can witness and attest to here on Earth. I will elaborate: when using a flashlight at night, or observing sun beams within the light of the beams cast, you can see particles floating and Dr if I ring in the air. These particles achieve an effect that makes them lighter than the air around them but cannot achieve a velocity that would allow them to escape the pull of gravity. This creates a sort of system in which these particles hang suspended being unable to move higher than an average height but are light enough that it takes quite a long time for them to settle as they are easily disturbed by the wind and other effects. Yes, the surface gravity on Mars is weaker, but that only makes the effect greater than here on Earth. These particles of dust that exist from the Martian regolith are as fine or even more fine than such similar particles in our atmosphere. With the weaker gravity these particles reach higher above the Martian surface than they would on Earth, but still are unable to reach a velocity that would allow them to escape the gravity. So they are suspended in a similar fashion as I have described on the Earth. We can witness the kinds of color effects I'm talking about when a large fire burns smoke high above the surface as it scatters light from the sun in different color because it is not air dominated by nitrogen. The clinging of particles in the atmosphere at 100000 feet above Earth's surface is much less giving rise to a darker sky because gravity is less and the particles and gasses that create color in the sky are much less and gradually fade until there are none. You can't compare them in this way, it is misleading an not accurate.

Northerntruthseeker said...

I do believe you are missing the point..

It has to do with pressure and air density... With almost NO air density at the Martian surface, there is no way that the molecules present can scatter the light enough to cause a sky color hue... No molecules means no diffused light in the atmosphere... That is common sense..

I do see your points though, because I have already discussed the idea that the Martian sky is colored due to diffusion from dust particles and other mediums.. But again, light through dust in an almost 0 bar pressure atmosphere would be insufficient to scatter the light and color the sky...

The fact is that until someone actually stands on the Martian surface, considering the constant lies and frauds of NASA, we will never know exactly what the sky would look like.. But again with no air molecules to scatter the light, logic still holds that the sky would have no color at all, and therefore be black...

Yes, Titan has a sky color... But that is due to its thick atmosphere (1.4 BAR estimated) and even with the very poor light from Sol being almost 1.4 billion kilometers away, it would be a very dull color... Estimates give its sky color from its predominant nitrogen/methane atmosphere as having a very opaque yellow color... But again this is from the fact that there are plenty of molecules to diffuse the light...

Northerntruthseeker said...

It must also be noted that dust itself has very poor light scattering characteristics, and the iron dust on Mars would be insufficient to color the sky as noted in the infamous NASA pictures..

The fraud of coloring the sky red started with Viking which could not have landed on Mars using parachutes as they claim... That is an outright lie..... Parachutes again cannot work or function in a 0.004 BAR pressure at the surface.. They would not deploy at all, and therefore Viking would have fallen like a stone and crashed on the surface... But they knew it was impossible to land Viking on Mars so they faked the whole thing as a bicentennial stunt...

Yes, the sky was truly blue as first shown from Viking because it was on Earth..... Running the picture through a red filter was obviously a NASA stunt to give the first pictures an "alien" feel, and the American suckers fell for it!

Northerntruthseeker said...

That is also why every subsequent "mission" to Mars has the sky with the good ol' red color... Once they faked it with Viking, they had to continue or everyone would say..."A HA! Nasa is lying!!!"

NASA did the same thing with all of the fraud Apollo missions where there was no crater under the fraud Apollo 11 lander (someone forgot to dig a hole...) and all of the subsequent 5 landings had to also have the same lack of a crater or the jig would have been up!

Spacewarp said...

Good grief! So many mixed up ideas! Parachutes can't deploy at such low pressure? Well yes they can, but they won't be enough to slow an object against gravity...unless you have less gravity, and Mars' gravity is approx 38% that of Earth. Dust particles in the atmosphere don't scatter light much? Hmmm, try Googling "Krakatoa green sky" to see how well dust can scatter light. Although I suspect this comment will not end up on your blog as it does not agree with your conclusions.

Northerntruthseeker said...

Are you kidding me?

Even at 38% Earth's gravity, the Viking lander for example would have weighed some 500+ pounds.. Even at that weight, the "standard" parachutes that NASA deployed would be inefficient to slow it down in a 0.004 BAR atmosphere...

And the dust in the sky idea is defeated easily... Martian air pressure at 0.004 at the surface and obviously lower in the sky would be insufficient to lift the particles at all, even in a 38% Earth gravity environ.... No pressure means no density and therefore no lift...

The problem has always been that we are earth-centric... and when we see other worlds, we expect the same as what we have and see on Earth, but the reality is quite different...

Northerntruthseeker said...

The fact is that all the landers used conventional parachutes.. the concept of the "supersonic" parachute for lower pressure systems has been discussed, but has yet to be tested let alone deployed by NASA...

Again, the Curiosity, Spirit, and Pathfinder missions were all possible, because their landing method was by basically throwing a big gas ball at Mars and have it bounce around until it stopped bouncing..... Once that occurred, the gas was released, the probes uprighted and released from the center of the gas balls...

Problem is that NASA claimed that they were in "contact" with Pathfinder for a full 24 hours after its initial activation shortly after it landed.. NOT POSSIBLE if you consider Mars spins on its axis, and therefore communication requires at least 3 satellites in Mars orbit to allow a full 24 straight broadcast.. There was only one orbiter active at the time of Pathfinder, and that was the Pathfinder orbiter itself... Therefore, Pathfinder was bogus....

dennis vdk said...

you guys are pathetic